1. Project Report Paul Drumm CM15, FNAL June 2006

2. MICE Schedule Overview First beam September/October 2007 –Shutdown from January 2007 –Eight months for installation –Seven months remaining for procurement

3. MICE Schedule Overview Installation plan: –Prepare the hall prior to shutdown Drilling holes Replacing stairs Installing mezzanine and magnetic shielding Strengthening floor plates Prepare support platform for decay solenoid Procure shielding

4. MICE Schedule Overview Installation plan: Shutdown –Preparations: Target – Synchrotron components & support frame – Target module – Infrastructure (cabling) Beam components in synchrotron hall – beam pipe – quad triplet & support frame – dipole & support frame – Infrastructure (vacuum, cabling, water) Shielding –Interface between MICE & synchrotron halls

5. MICE Schedule Overview Installation plan: Shutdown –Installation in synchrotron: Target Beam components in synchrotron hall Shielding (? new concept) –Installation in MICE hall: Front end shielding Platform & installation kit for solenoid Support frames for dipole & triplets Shielding around dipole & triplets

6. Beam line schedule ….

7. Beam line geometry TTargetSheffield APion CaptureISIS BDecay Solenoid EID CMuon Transport Channel Liverpool ? DDiffuserOxford

8. Hall Schedule

9. Other tasks Instrumentation installation –Installation Electrical distribution –Layout Plan –Installation Beam line power supplies –Delivery –Installation Cooling water distribution –Delivery –Installation Work goes on in parallel

10. Instrumentation, Electronics & DAQ Milestones: (all interesting for Review) –Frascati beam tests ToF muCal Electronics –CKOV1 Design review –DAQ ?: When is it needed (at full capacity)?

11. Instrumentation, Electronics & DAQ In principle 12 months available –Design, build, test? Time for this but… –What are the risks? Electronics, rate, Cost, timescale (DAQ?) Frascati tests in beam tests at RAL?

12. Risks – build ? Shutdown – fixed time period Target –performance? –Lots of unknowns: rates? Beam line engineering –Low Hall: –Solenoid Commissioning Do we need a plan B? –Hydrogen R&D Priority & planning problem? R&D: Absorber R&D (KEK) Hydrogen R&D (RAL) +  AFC RF: Power at phase 2: Tubes ; System? Phase 2 (UK): capped funds

13. MICE Reviews Critical parts –Target –Beam line Step wise –Hall Concept Progress –Instrumentation Detectors (ToF, Ckov, Tracker ) Electronics DAQ –Spectrometer magnet

14. Review Timetable MICE  Tech board  TB Review Calendar: –http://www.isis.rl.ac.uk/accelerator/MICE/TechBoard/D&S/Index.htmlhttp://www.isis.rl.ac.uk/accelerator/MICE/TechBoard/D&S/Index.html –Hydrogen –Hall –Tracker

15. Tracker Review –see technical board review web page: MICE -> technical board -> TB review pageMICEtechnical boardTB review page –Present: Tech Board: PD, ABl, ABr, ME, WL+SY Reviewers: GG, PS Tracker team –Review encouraged by progress: Main points… –Tremendous body of work – well documented and a good example –document and prove the QA procedures with new station –Develop a risk strategy Suggestions … General MICE Issues: –Alignment of MICE & magnetic field axis

16. Mechanical: 1) Verify flatness requirements on the patch panel near the O-ring seals to guarantee gas tightness and to minimise helium leak rate. 2) What is the relative alignmnet between the tracker and magnet? Check that this misalignment does not degrade the emittance measurement, and if it does, define a strategy for aligning the tracker with the magnets. 3) The tracker team is encouraged to pursue ways of simplifying the fibre run from the patch panel to the VLPC cassettes and to check for interferences with other parts of the MICE infrastructure. VLPC: 4) The tracker team should define a monitoring and control procedure to avoid moisture in the top plate of the cryocooler. For example, by use of a humidity sensor, one can verify that one is always abovethe dew point. 5) The tracker team should define a mechanism that is fail safe under conditions of under-pressure in the turbo pumps. Electronics: 6) The tracker team should define a plan to ensure that sufficient expert manpower to write the FPGA firmware is available. Tracker Review

17. QA/QC: 7) It was suggested to check if injection with visible light is possible on the mirrored side of the fibre, to avoid having to use UV light for the quality control, which might damage the fibres. 8) The tracker team is urged to build a new tracker station adopting the new QC procedures as soon as the full procedures are in place. Extensive tests of the station should be performed during the assembly and at the end of the assembly to verify that the efficiency, light yield and resolution are as expected. These should be reported to the collaboration as a final check before full production of the 15 remaining stations commences. Tracker Review

18. Analysis: 8) Include a simulation run with air, to study the degradation in the emittance measurement, and to determine whether the He atmosphere is absolutely necessary. 9) The tracker team is urged to finish the optimisation of the station spacing and general layout as soon as possible. There seems to be an error in the numbering of the stations in table 8.4-1 of the TRD, since the spacing betweens stations 1-2 is larger than between stations 4- 5. Check that the labelling of the stations is consistent with the drawings. QC!. Tracker Review

19. Management & Risks: 10) The management of the tracker project is complex, since it spans three continents. However, it seems that the tracker team has established excellent communication amongst the three parts of the collaboration to ensure that the work is carried out in time. The management team are dealing with the financial and manpower risks adequately. However, it would be useful to develop a risk plan laid out, to tackle each of the risks identified. With thanks to Paul Soler for his notes Tracker Review Conclusion: positive, encouraging, …with care

20. And next…